Comments by "" (@redtela) on "BlackBeltBarrister"
channel.
-
Interesting debate here.
I once was the vehicle immediately behind a drunk driver, who had a head on collision with traffic coming the other way. My dash cam caught everything very clearly. Once officers arrived, I invited them into the car to view the footage, and they accepted, viewed it and then said "ok, I'm going to need to seize your camera for evidence."
I countered with "Really? I'd rather keep it... I can burn a copy to DVD for you this evening, and deliver it anywhere you want, by hand, tomorrow." Initially, the officer said that was OK, and took my details as a witness.
Once it was possible, I then drove one of the (innocent) people to the hospital (by agreement with the attending paramedics)... and about 5 minutes after I got home, the same officer knocked on the door with a "Sorry, tomorrow isn't soon enough, any chance you can burn the DVD now?" He was quite happy when I said "yep, no issues, come in, I'll make you a brew while you wait."
1
-
1
-
Quite simply, in the original case, I don't know the underlying reason/motivation for the offender to hold a knife to his wife. For me to presume that is domestic abuse is exactly that, a presumption. I haven't read the case notes, and it's not discussed here.
If it was related to domestic abuse, then the ordinary English meaning of the text implies he should not have been released early. But often, the law has a different interpretation.
Can you conclusively state in that case, that there was a technical legality? If so, why wasn't that discussed in the video? What was the underlying motivation for the knife incident? For all I know, it could have been a case of him defending himself, things went to court, and because it was inside the privacy of their own home, with no witnesses around, the jury found in the wives favour.
Yet further, supposing that she was in the marital home as he is being released, is there some reason that she hasn't applied for a non-mol order (or similar) to exclude him from the home? I'm sure many women are in exactly that situation, and I'm not belittling their cases at all... I simply can't speak ill of anyone, without actually knowing the facts.
1
-
1
-
I have been reported for a TS20 in the past (crossing a solid white line). The bike officer that observed me, and stopped me at the roadside reported "I can see that you went for an overtake, and I saw the car accelerate to block you. If you had tucked back in behind him, I would now be having a serious chat with him, and not you. Your motorcycle control is impeccable, but as a biker, my priority is that you think better."
He said absolutely nothing of the fact that he'd just followed me down a valley road where we were both touching approx 115mph (in an NSL area), and I bumped into him again on an advanced riding course, he still didn't care about the speed.
An excellent example of why officers are better than cameras. I understood his point clearly, sought additional training for safety, and now I pass that attitude on to others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I just called it as I saw it" - very true. Unfortunately you are viewing the situation from what would appear to be an ill informed stance.
My personal reaction to the meeting, was that I saw the headlines and deliberately went "lets not just follow the headlines, I'll find the original, unedited video, watch it as if I were in the room live." As for other leaders reactions after the meeting, I literally could not care less, I expect they will be busy virtue signalling. The "whole thing" is actually longer than 40 something minutes, if we're including the US media run up to the meeting.
Perhaps it might be the case, that you saw the largest number of unsubscriptions on your opinion of the meeting, because you completely misread the situation. My takeaway from that video, was that you were somewhat excusing/justifying the behaviour of Vance & Trump, while laying blame at Zelensky's feet. My comment, on that video of yours, was at least attempting to lay the blame equally at Vance & Zelensky, while somewhat understanding Trump's position.
In your previous video, you seemed to hinge on the fact that Zelensky didn't wear a suit. Again, I will re-iterate that when Churchill went to the Whitehouse to ask for US involvement in WWII - he also did not wear a suit. No-one considered him disrespectful. There was also a bust of Churchill on display, in the room when Trump & Zelensky met.
I find it odd that your previous stance was that the lack of a suit was the starting point for the tensions, but now, you say it was the "diplomacy doesn't work" comments. Zelensky was upset way before that.
1
-
1
-
So, let me get this straight... it's OK for you to not wear a suit, to indicate that you're "no better than the viewer, just explaining things that you know"... meanwhile, Zelensky has vowed not to wear a suit until the war is over, to show solidarity with his military forces... and that is somehow disrespectful, just because he happens to be in the Oval Office?
This not withstanding, of course, that he has not worn a suit on previous occasions at the Oval Office, including when meeting Trump, but no-one considered it disrespectful then?
I know a few Ukrainian folks - and while they have never liked Zelensky, I can understand the cultural reasons behind WHY Zelensky acted the way he did. IMO, Vance was the most disrespectful, and stoked the arguments. Trump was trying to play hardball, so that he can ALSO play hardball with Putin, and Zelensky was ANGRY - to put it mildly. That is why Zelensky's body language was defensive.
It is factually accurate that all global leaders, so far, have done nothing to stop Putin. Sure, help has been offered to Ukraine - but none of that help has actually stopped Putin. Sadly, I don't believe deplomacy will work - Putin has a long record of doing whatever he pleases, both within and external to his own country, regardless of any consequences. If your thoughts on Zelensky claiming no-one has stopped Putin is where it all kicked off... Zelensky still wasn't factually wrong, or disrespectful to point it out.
I watched the whole thing, including the 3h or so lead up to the meeting - you are factually incorrect that Zelensky was not interrupted. Sure, he wasn't interrupted at the particular point you are referencing, but he was interrupted, talked over, and not allowed to complete answers to comments made by Vance. It was Vance, mostly, who raised his voice in order to talk over Zelensky.
Sadly, it is very clear that you do not understand the Ukrainian/Russian culture, and you're applying a Western cultural reference to your observations - which interestingly, lead you to almost the exact opposite conclusion of most of the rest of the Western media, at least in so far as I've seen media references to it.
And here I was, thinking that this channel purported to being unbiased.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quite simple really, end the false dichotomy, and define things such as human rights applicable to a person - regardless of their gender (assigned or otherwise). That, is equality.
When it comes to sports, allow the governing bodies the scope to have male-only, female-only, and mixed gender competition categories - allow market forces to dictate how popular they are. If I wish to join an archery team, but there isn't one for 1000 miles nearby, that is not discrimination. I am welcome to setup my own team/club. I can predict how popular my archery team would be, and that's a large part of why I haven't bothered to buy a bow... (archery chosen at random because of it's negligible gender differences)
When it comes to prisons - build more (we're already reportedly at capacity) and have spaces determined by use-requirements rather than history. There is no reason a prison couldn't have multiple "trans-sections" and Governors already have a mandate to look after the well-being of all within their establishment equally. Sadly, in many cases not related to gender, sometimes they have no choice other than solitary confinement. Build prisons, create spaces, and the issue goes away. Yes, it would cost more and isn't a popular opinion - but criminals being free to roam the streets also isn't popular.
When it comes to public toilets - many organisations have already moved to single-occupancy gender neutral facilities. Tesco being one example, at my local one, they have 1 toilet, for use by 1 person at any time, with a lock on the door. It's disability-friendly access. Don't want to queue behind other people? Go to the toilet at home, no-one is stopping you.... If a pub deems that this policy would drive their customers away, they're welcome to create more toilets and sacrifice some floor space.
1
-
1
-
Perhaps this is a case to discuss the topic of nullification by jury?
Emergency service drivers are taught not to encourage drivers to jump red lights (or speed through roadworks etc) - they do this by turning sirens (mostly) and lights off, then resuming after the hazard.
To counter the "vehicle waiting for green" point that you make, I have done exactly that. I was driving a very powerful car (4x4 with WRC spec engine), traffic light controlled cross roads in a 50mph area. I was young & stupid, and when my light went green, I launched. Immediately after launching an ambulance appeared to the left of me, with blue lights on but no siren. Thankfully they stopped, because it was already far too late for me to do the same without blocking the junction.
For the chap in the case, if I remember correctly, when you get a NIP, you can reply in writing (I know it works that way under SJP). Therefore the chap wouldn't need to go to the court and talk with the magistrate - and it wouldn't increase costs.
1
-
1
-
So, nothing was actually exposed and nothing was said about whomever might actually be running the country. Just a government response read out, and someone else's video played, so as to distance yourself from the actual opinion. Got it.
The government response that was read out is nothing like mind control. It's word salad. They have a duty to respond, that response does not have to make sense.
The PR team responsible don't want to write "it would be undemocratic to reverse a recent vote and go back to the polls" for fear of inciting nearly 3 million people to riot. But that is the truth, it would be undemocratic to call a new election just because 4% of the population asked, when the vote completed by a conservative estimate of 13.4 million. Since when do 3 million get to counter what 13million wanted?
(For ref, assuming 68 million people in the UK, 60% of those voted, and 33% of votes were Labour, that is 13.46 million)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no requirement to give a FULL defence at interview. However, if you're actually innocent, there's no harm in having an open conversation. Indeed doing so will likely help the police/CPS end your involvement quicker, and save tax payers money.
After interview, if charged, the defence will require a FULL disclosure from the prosecution, and then you get to formally (in writing) reply with your defence statement.
The point BBB was making, applies to if you first mention something in the court room, it will look like you just made it up. If you don't mention it in a police interview, but do before trial (via your legal representative), then it will be argued that you did raise the defence statements at your first available opportunity (you might not know it's a valid defence, until you discuss it with your counsel and they point it out to you).
Justice should certainly not be blind, it relies on all the facts being uncovered/brought to light!
1
-
@clarkmerchant2 I'm neither police nor CPS. I also know of one specific case where indeed the investigating officer was convinced of someones innocence due to interviews alone. The interviews were pre-charge too, and no charge was ever made.
It happened to me, when I was interviewed about a thing that I didn't do. I'll add that my solicitor was with me throughout the interviews - not the duty one.
Infer whatever you like, but context matters. If you understand the law (and not only the thing you might be accused of), and you're innocent, there is literally no benefit to staying quiet.
However, there's more ways than just in an interview to communicate the facts. For example, you could choose to stay silent in the interview, wait for the transcript of the questions, and then, via a solicitor, formally write your reply. If later they charge you, it would be unreasonable to accuse you of not mentioning something earlier, that you NOW rely on as a defence.
And yes, legal proceedings are expensive, if you KNOW you're 100% innocent, and you choose to stay silent, you're choosing to not end that expense as early as you can. So you also then can't complain when the local council tax rises.
1
-
1
-
Quite some time ago, I parked my motorcycle in a "half length bay" - standard width, still had the white paint at the sides, but it was half length because half of it had been converted to paving, and it was directly outside the shop entrance (the shop I was going into). There was approximately 2m of paving for people to walk on outside the shops, with some bollards, and then half of this space (and the adjacent one) were paved over.
Me, presuming they did that because they didn't want cars parking too close to the shop doors, and not seeing dedicated motorcycle parking, thought this was ideal. So I parked in it.
I came back to the bike to find a parking charge notice for "blocking a fire exit" (note that I was about 4m from said "fire exit" - main shop doors, with a motorcycle that is about 75cm wide at it's widest point). So I took pictures, had a little chuckle to myself and went home. I considered it utterly ridiculous that anyone thought I was blocking a fire exit, when it appeared to still be a designated parking space.
Instead of writing to the company, I picked up the phone, and to my surprise, got through to a human. On explaining, the chap replied with a "what bike do you ride?" - I answered and he chuckled with a "don't worry, I'm a biker too, the attendant in that car park is well known for hitting bikes with pointless tickets. Let me cancel that for you. Have a good day."
1
-
1
-
I went to a comprehensive too, and my careers advice was rather rubbish. I went on to university, and came out with a "debt" (that I never really felt while paying off, because it was taken from salary). At highschool, we had in excess of 30 students per class. I still have no clue how that has any baring whatsoever on VAT for private schools.
Yes, the charges will go up for those paying private school fees, but that does not necessarily mean that students will flock to other schools. Market forces will come into play, as they always do. The school that sees a mass exodus of students will adjust their income streams accordingly.
Splitting classes in two doesn't duplicate everything such as heating - virtually all schools have a central heating system, and even unused classrooms are heated (or not, if the heating system is broken in winter, and on in summer, like ours always was).
Private school teachers are not paid for by the local authority (my partner happens to be a teacher). Schools will find it very difficult to cut salaries of teachers (changes to terms & conditions of employment must be agreed by the employee), and the teachers union is already quite well versed in having employment discussions.
You don't NEED to be in a catchment area to get into a school, the catchment area takes priority, but schools will and do accept students from outside the area (take cases of poorly behaved students excluded from a given school, for example). Private school closing? Well... the teachers need to work somewhere to pay their own bills... sure, the school need the physical space, but my high school used temporary buildings for their own reasons.
Lots of straw man thinking going in this video.
Lets say that the government decides not to raise capital by any mechanism - the outlook to the economy does not look fantastic (we can't keep "printing money" as that causes inflation)... they will have to do something, and that will upset someone... but will it negatively affect us all? Probably not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Given he was holding it in his hand, the conviction is (in my opinion) sound.
The interesting part though, is that section you quoted (6a, of reg. 110), seems to imply that a mobile phone counts under the legislation, regardless of how it is being used at the time of alleged offence ("...if it is, or must be, held at some point..."). Combine that sentiment with reg. 110 S 4 and it could be argued that regardless of how the device is being used, it is still a device that falls under the consideration of reg. 110.
So, in theory, in-car controls that communicate with the phone, or voice control of the phone, may well count as "use" - and of course, until such a case is heard in a court, everything is simply speculation anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for raising this, in general, I think the Highway Code is a well thought out document, and I agree with the aims of these latest proposed changes (that is, addressing vulnerability and responsibility).
I think that the clauses about waiting if a more vulnerable user looks like they are about to move are probably (or should be) covered by other clauses (ie, the basic tenant of "you don't move unless you can see the way ahead to be clear"). As a result, they are, as you suggest, adding confusion.
Clearly, if some pedestrian is already crossing the road when I get to the junction, I should stop and case a blockage in my current lane (with an indicator on) - and I think the existing Highway Code already made that clear enough. The devil always lies in the details though, and ambiguity sets in as multiple parties act at the same time.
Also, it's worth remembering the Highway Code definitions for Guidelines (should) vs Rules (must)... when read in that light, I interpret this as "if you don't follow it and no-one has cause to make a claim, no-one cares."
1
-
1
-
Thanks for the update on the cradle - that was one of my questions. My phone is always in a cradle when I'm driving, and connected to the car using bluetooth. Regardless of the phone function (calls/music/sat nav etc), I can control all of those functions using the manufacturer provided controls within the car, and I have no need to touch the phone whatsoever, let alone hold it in my hand at any point. I can also hit a button on the steering column to enable voice commands, and then for example "Hey Google, call the emergency services!"
Of course, none of this would be a defence for Careless Driving - and indeed, this has always been the case, well before Regulation 110 came along.
I was curious about interacting with the phone by prodding at the screen (without it ever being held), and as you suggest, this is probably a grey area at best, and not worth the cost/time of arguing it in a court - in my opinion. Certainly not when there are much safer alternatives available.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not that long ago, two officers opened my front door - no knocking, literally just opened the door and shouted "hello" - they did not, at that point, identify themselves as police.
So I got up, went from my front room to the hallway, to find these two officers shining flashlights at me. On seeing me, they then identified themselves as police, and asked what the address was (I live on a farm with multiple rental properties, mine doesn't have a number/name on the front door). I told them the correct address, and they replied "Oh, sorry, we're looking for Mr X at number Y. Do you know where that property is?"
Quick mental maths told me that they're looking for someone else (that I've never met) at a different property - so I invited them in for a few minutes. I knew nothing illegal had happened in the house, so they couldn't find anything against me anyway. I shared the landlords phone number with them, gave them some options of where the property might be that they were looking for, told them where the post pigeon holes were (so they could check if the person had collected post or not). They thanked me, admitted they were out of their normal area, and left. I still don't know what alleged offence they were seeking information about.
My point: sometimes in the course of an investigation, police will talk to you even if you have nothing at all to do with the case they are investigating.
I've also been interviewed under caution, but did so with my solicitor (not the duty one) sitting next to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1